My prepared speech had to be adapted to some extent ‘on the fly’ but this is an approximate transcript.
I would like to draw your attention to the Royal Arms above. It shows the words ‘God and my Right.’ I shall be referring to it again.
Our country is a Christian country; we all know the nature of the God referred to on the Royal Arms above. Not only that, you have sworn an oath on the word of God. So first of all we shall see what God says about the Jews:
‘Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.’’
This is the origin of the saying that the Jews are ‘the spawn of Satan.’ This is not an obscure Old Testament verse but one of the four gospels, Jesus addressing the Hebrews in the Gospel of St. John (8:44). So God says that the Jews are ‘of the devil,’ in other words, evil. Is this incitement to racial hatred? According to the Bible the Jews are evil and God abhors evil. Is the Bible “racially inflammatory material”? Is being called evil “abusive, threatening or insulting”? I believe it is. Then either the Bible is illegal or the Bible is legal everything more moderate than it is also legal.
Another important reference is the dictionary. In the definition given in the Longman Modern English Dictionary (p. 918), heredity is mentioned but also has one of the definitions of race as follows:
‘a group of people of the same profession or sharing some binding interest, the race of actors’
Thus we can talk of the race of judges, the race of criminals, the race of politicians etc. These sections of the Public Order Act are really just a clever formulation of words allowing the government to suppress critics of its immigration policies – their political opponents – not for what they do but for what they say or write. If a law is passed which prohibits truth, it is not only bad law but malevolent. It has been passed with the express intent of damaging us.
My leaflet was intended to inspire not hatred but ridicule of the race of contemporary politicians. The law on “racially inflammatory material” actually defines race solely in terms of heredity. Therefore inciting mockery, derision, anger or even hatred of politicians is specifically allowed under the terms of the Act. These politicians have betrayed the British people at every available opportunity. They accept bribes in the form of “consultancy fees” and fornicate with their secretaries and American research assistants, and they will do or say anything to stay in power. My leaflet was directed towards them, because they are traitors to their people.
When someone is living under a delusion the truth can come as a shock. In fact the greater the separation from reality the harder the truth is to countenance. I say that due to the unprecedented influence of the mass media that separation from reality is an enormous one. As a loyal subject of the Queen (for I too have sworn an oath of allegiance) I say that it is not just my right to restore reality in this case, but my duty.
I know that in the field of personal relationships the truth can be used as a weapon. But here we are not dealing with personal relationships but with politics, and particularly, with the future of our country. Here truth is paramount. Any system based on untruth will ultimately fail. The consequences of untruth are far too important to be suppressed to protect the delicate sensibilities of anyone.
Here, in this court, we have the situation where seeking to maintain and uphold the customs of the British people, which even the Queen is obliged to swear to do in accordance with the Coronation Oath Act of 1688, has led to me being prosecuted in a court claiming to act on behalf of the Crown and which derives its authority from the Crown. It is obvious that something is very wrong somewhere.
Lord Justice Hailsham has said of this legislation that:
‘It is a slippery slope... it is the first time in English law that you are presumed guilty until proven innocent.’
I intend to show that this law has been made by people who are traitors: in other words, criminals. It is being enforced by people who are being manipulated. That is why this prosecution has been brought. I would like to read you the judgement of Lord Justice Sedley in the High Court in July 1999:
‘Free speech included not only the inoffensive but also the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative provided it did not tend to provoke violence. Freedom only to speak inoffensively was not worth having.’
(Redmond-Bate v. DPP, 1999, QBD)